Noah's Ark 2004

[cerridwen]

There are a handful of forums I could've posted this in, but I thought it'd get the most reads from here... have fun!

It is the year 2004 and Noah lives in the United States.

The Lord speaks to Noah and says: "In one year I am going to make it rain and cover the whole earth with water until all is destroyed. But I want you to save the righteous people and two of every kind of living thing on the earth. Therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark."

In a flash of lightning, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. Fearful and trembling, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the Ark. "Remember," said the Lord, "You must complete the Ark and bring everything aboard in one year."

Exactly one year later, a fierce storm cloud covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw Noah sitting in his front yard weeping. "Noah." He shouted, "Where is the Ark?"

"Lord, please forgive me!" cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a permit for construction and your plans did not comply with the codes. I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans. Then I got into a fight with the fire department over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system and floatation
devices.

"Then my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission. I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me catch any owls. So, no owls."

"The carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Union. Now I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls."

"When I started rounding up the other animals, I got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me only taking two of each kind aboard.

Just when I got the suit dismissed, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the Universe."

"Then the Army Corps of Engineers demanded a map of the proposed new flood plain. I sent them a globe."

"Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking godless, unbelieving people aboard! The IRS has seized all my assets, claiming that I'm building the Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes. I just got a notice from the state that I owe some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a recreational water craft."

"Finally the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it is a religious event, therefore unconstitutional. I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another 5 or 6 years!" Noah wailed.

The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine and the seas began to calm. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up hopefully. "You mean you are not going to destroy the earth, Lord?"

"No," said the Lord sadly. "The government already has."

[Brocktoon]

Ha!
And I bet that could be changed about to fit Canada or Wales too (based on the nonsensical regulation madness in those countries too) lol!

I know a lot of people got tired of all the ill-fated attempt to climb Mt. Ararat and look for Noahs' Ark. I did. Especially after that Astronaut died up there.

The funniest thing happened - Last Summer, Europe had that deadly heat-wave and it seems the snows melted off that 'peculiar' area on Ararat, revealing those 'objects' again.

Now a whole new team of climbers are planning a big expedition.
Honestly, I hope they make it and put to rest 'whatever' that thing is up there.

If its not Noahs Ark then GOOD...... we wont have to wonder anymore lol!

Check out this link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838007/?GT1=3256

Personally.. it looks like a pile of rocks to me??

[Harmony_rain]

I accually watched a special on the ark once and it was really interesting to see all the things they found that could prove that it is the lost ark. The messured the area of the imprint and found it to be of accuret size to fit all those animals. They also found stones far down the mountains that had holes drilled through the top that could be used as anchors on Noah's ship. I think its an awsome thing to find. I hope they discove more when they go back up.

[seahorse]

hey guys, i was excited to see this thread, but I was expecting to read something about the news special on CNN that elaborates on the actual trip up mount Aaraat planned for this summer 2004!!!

the article I read said that last summer the heat wave in Europe revealed a shape under the snow and ice that was so many feet wide and so many feet long. A team for the climb has been put together for the exciting adventure, and I can't wait to see what happens! Could you imagine? they find Noah's ark!!!???what a witness to the world eh? that would be awesome, I am praying that they find it for sure!
I'll try to find the link so y'all can read it for yerselves, if they even keep old news in archives, which they probably do. also, there are websites out there that are dedicated to Noah's ark, you might be able to find some interesting facts if you look it up on your search engines.
let 'em have it Lord!!!LOL

[seahorse]

ok my dudes here's the link please enjoy!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/26/noah.ark.ap/

[Brocktoon]

That Mountain reminds me of the Oak Island 'treasure pit' in the sense that it seems to be 'cursed'.
There have been hundreds of expeditions planned, yet always scrapped.
- The cold war and the fact its right on the border of the former USSR
- Unpredictable weather patterns always seem to protect it lol
- Turkish Islamic Militants were busy fighting with the Turk Gov for years.
- Or..... people just die trying and they gotta retreat.

Turns out... The KGB knew about that 'shape' for the last 40 years. They had recon flights over it just to make sure it wasnt an allied 'spy base' LOL!

Personally.. if it turns out to be a pile of rocks then I will be happy because it will end the speculation.... at least on THAT section.

Harmony... I did see that site with the loadstones. For a while it was the 'official' Noahs Ark but now Im hearing they think its a natural formation, or, an ancient encampment.
Its still pretty 'curious' that it fits the shape of the Ark and there are anchors lying around?!

Cool stuff!

[ChiefCowpie]

the article I read said that last summer the heat wave in Europe revealed a shape under the snow and ice that was so many feet wide and so many feet long. A team for the climb has been put together for the exciting adventure, and I can't wait to see what happens! Could you imagine? they find Noah's ark!!!???what a witness to the world eh? that would be awesome, I am praying that they find it for sure!the story of noah's ark is actually an ancient Sumerian myth that was borrowed by the Hebrews...it would only prove the validity of the Sumerian myths

[cerridwen]

It's been a while since I've been to church or practiced catholisism... but I do still find it rather interesting when there are discoveries made that proves events of the bible... it's kinda cool!

[Brocktoon]

I noticed a logic problem in your logic correction ChiefCowPie...

The Sumerian are the oldest known records of a global flood and of a 'Noah'.

This can mean THREE things:

-The Flood did indeed happen and consequently there are many records (as would be expected) in the Ancient cultures.

- The Sumerians copied there story from somewhere else although WE just happen to have found their version first (including early Hebrews who had not yet written Genesis 'officially')

- The Hebrews derived their story from Gilgamesh.

Just wanted to point that out to avoid confusion.

[ChiefCowpie]

yes the flood happened and many ancient cultures have similar accounts of a flood

the sumerians could not have copied it from elsewhere cuz sumeria is the cradle of civilization

ummm...gilgamesh was a sumerian

no logic problem

just wanted to point that out to avoid confusion.

[Brocktoon]

the story of noah's ark is actually an ancient Sumerian myth that was borrowed by the Hebrews...it would only prove the validity of the Sumerian myths
There are at least two logic problems in this alone.
More if you count your second reply.

I will just let you solve them on your own time :D

Hint... The story of Noah's ark would 'therefore' be a Hebrew Myth derived from a Sumerian Myth.

Hint.. IF it was Noahs Ark discovered then it would prove the validity of who's Ark?

Oh well.. personaly I think its a huge pile of rocks on that mountain... I just cant see how a wooden ark would still be intact after 5000 years and be sitting on top of the mountain like that????

[ChiefCowpie]

Hint.. IF it was Noahs Ark discovered then it would prove the validity of who's Ark?

maritime law concerning lost ships in international waters is that they are owned by the sea until they are found and then its finders keepers, but since the ship is believed to be found within the territorial borders of turkey on mt. ararat, it would belong to turkey

but this may be contested both by israel and iraq (present day sumeria) with both laying claim to the boat much like an airplane that crashes belongs to the country it originated with except in military/spy operations where such a vehicle is confiscated

it could as well be deemed that the boat had militaristic implications since God unleeshed a premeditated first strike upon his enemies and noah was in league with God

i expect this to be a hotly contested ownership issue if the ark is found

[Professor Jumbo]

Yeah, right the flood really happened. It really is fantastically pathetic that people still think that it occured.

How did Noah get all of the animals? Where did he get the penguins for example? The temperature and salinity changes that would have occured in the oceans in such a flood would have destroyed all sea life, so how did he get all of the fish and whales and corals (yes corals are animals, not plants) on the boat? All plant life would have been wiped out, so how did Noah and the animals survive after the flood? While on the ark what did the Lions eat? Where did Noah keep all of the food anyhow. Come to think of it, where did he put the animals? The combined mass and the combined volume of two of every animal species is far great than a boat that size could have contained. Did God shrink the animals down real small? How did Noah keep the animals alive? He would have needed a massive powersupply to keep all of the various rooms properly climate controlled, penguins and alligators cannot live in the same environment. Where did the water for the flood come from? Where did it go? To completely cover the earth in forty days the rain would have had to have been so intense as to be the equivalent of a fire hose spraying down on every single square inch of the planet's surface. The heat generated thereby (yes this would generate quite alot of heat) would have been great enough to boil the oceans.

[Brocktoon]

Although its not explicitly stated in the account - its a good guess that Noah took new-born (or very young) animals.
He also took two or seven of each 'kind'.

Based on the measurements given, it is certainly possible.

(Im pretty sure that marine life were not included)

As to ventilation, feeding etc... no details are given. sorry.

[Professor Jumbo]

Although its not explicitly stated in the account - its a good guess that Noah took new-born (or very young) animals.
He also took two or seven of each 'kind'.

Based on the measurements given, it is certainly possible.

(Im pretty sure that marine life were not included)
Well marine life was not mentioned in the Bible as being included, this though is a problem. I repeat, the tempertaure and salinity changes alone in a flood of such magnitude would have wiped out all marine life with the probable exception of mircoorganisms. So if marine life was not taken on the ark then how did it surive the flood?

In terms of Volume of the ark, using the longest interpretation of that cubit, 18 inches. At "300 cubits, by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits" we arrive at a volume of 1,618,750 cubic feet. Now, given that there are estimated to be nearly 3 billion species of land animals, and given that Noah took two of each, we are left with a figure (rounded up) of .0003 cubic feet or .0036 cubic inches for each animal.

Additionally, how did Noah buit such a big wooden boat? It was made of wood, right? All the technology in the world today would be hard pressed to build a wooden boat so large, or at least one so large that would still hold up under the conditions of a world-wide flood?

And of course there is still the matter of how Noah was able to travel all around the world collecting two of every single species in less than a year and still have time to build the ark. Did Noah really go treking out to the Amazon rainforest? To Antarctica? To New Zealand? To Alaska?

[Brocktoon]

Your making the terrrible assumption the world was the same as it is today.

It could not have been.

Noah would have taken two (or seven) of each 'Kind'.
This would not equal three billion species.

Just as an example. Noah would have taken a litter of Grey Wolves (or even the pre-cursor to that animal) NOT all 500+ types of Dog-Kind animals you see today.

After the flood, the geneticly rich 'kinds' would be dispersed and natural selection (especially in a new and maybe harsher world) would have caused all the kinds to specialise into what we now know as billions of species.

Its highly unlikely the world geography was the same as today. There would not have been an 'Alaska' or 'Tropical amazon'. with 'already specialised' kinds of animals.

While its said 'Noah built the Ark' its probably safe to say this is like saying 'Donald Trump' built the Trump Towers.
Certainly he had crews and labourers and probably even hired skilled craftsmen etc.
No one is suggesting he did it alone by hand.

Same goes for his zoo collection. No one is suggesting he just forraged around in the woods on his spare time away from the Ark.

[Professor Jumbo]

Noah would have taken two (or seven) of each 'Kind'.
This would not equal three billion species.
Yes it would, that is what "each kind" means. Two (or seven) of each kind means just that, of each kind. It does not mean just of few, leaving most kinds behaind as you seem to think.

Just as an example. Noah would have taken a litter of Grey Wolves (or even the pre-cursor to that animal) NOT all 500+ types of Dog-Kind animals you see today.
Exactly, the 500+ domesticated dog breeds are still just one species so he woulod have taken two dogs, though there are several specis of wild dogs. If we were talking breeds of animals (as you seem to be) instead of species then the number becomes far higher than 3 billion. If you want to make sense you will need to come up with a consistent definition of "kinds". For example, cows and blue whales are in the same biological class, does this mean that they are of the same kind?

After the flood, the geneticly rich 'kinds' would be dispersed and natural selection (especially in a new and maybe harsher world) would have caused all the kinds to specialise into what we now know as billions of species.

Right, in 4,000 or so supposed years since the flood. This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It does support evolution though, ironically enough. The Bible doesn't support it though. But, let us assume that by some miracle (God is good at those) this actually happened. Now how did all of those animals get from the Mountains of Ararat to where they are today? Penguins, (I like them as you probably have noticed) how did penguins (or whatever non-specific Bird that Noah took) evolve into penguins and then get to Antarctica, an environment in which no bird native to the middle east could hope to survive for more than two hours? How did kangaroos and wallabies get to Australia? Did they swim? Did they fly?

Its highly unlikely the world geography was the same as today. There would not have been an 'Alaska' or 'Tropical amazon'. with 'already specialised' kinds of animals. So the only animals alvie just happened to be in Naoh's backyard so to speak? Was the rest of the world devoid of life? Specific geography does not matter. What matter is the size of the planet and the fact that life must have been present nearly everywhere.

While its said 'Noah built the Ark' its probably safe to say this is like saying 'Donald Trump' built the Trump Towers.
Certainly he had crews and labourers and probably even hired skilled craftsmen etc.
No one is suggesting he did it alone by hand.
Of course he didn't do it alone, he has his sons Shem, Ham ,and Japheth. Nothing at all ever is mentioned about him having a giant work crew. Even if he did it does not matter. Even with every piece of modern ship building know how and technology a viable wooden boat that big simply cannot be built. It is not a question of having a crew or not. People have tried, most within the past 100 years, to build wooden boats that big and failed. How then was Noah (and his supposed crew) able to do it so effortlessly.

Same goes for his zoo collection. No one is suggesting he just forraged around in the woods on his spare time away from the Ark.
Okay, so the question remains then. How did he get all of the animals? You say that he didn't go and get them. Did they come to him? Or did he have a crew for that too? Did he have a crew for chopping down all of the trees? From milling the lumber? A crew for drying and curing it? For bringing it to the construction site? For making all of tools, many of which would have to have been designed from the ground up for such an immense project? If he had crews for all of this we are now in the realm of tens of thousands of people working on the ark.

[Brocktoon]

Yes it would, that is what "each kind" means. Two (or seven) of each kind means just that, of each kind. It does not mean just of few, leaving most kinds behaind as you seem to think.
I dont see a problem here but then again - Im not great at math.

One site gives this:

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+6:15&version=NKJV)), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Ive seen this forumla worked out by numerous different people and it does work out if you assume that we are looking at young animals.
Some suggest that something like Alligators or birds might even have been taken in the egg stages too. (well.. thats sensible)



Exactly, the 500+ domesticated dog breeds are still just one species so he woulod have taken two dogs, though there are several specis of wild dogs. If we were talking breeds of animals (as you seem to be) instead of species then the number becomes far higher than 3 billion. If you want to make sense you will need to come up with a consistent definition of "kinds". For example, cows and blue whales are in the same biological class, does this mean that they are of the same kind?
Its true that modern (ok.. 18th century people) came up with all kinds of classifications for animals.
These often change or are found to be subjective classifications (i.e. is a bear from the dog kind or another kind to itself?.. lately they are now saying Bears are from the dog family)

There has been a lot of changes in all this because of DNA analysis and archaelogical finds.
For example.. we just recently found out that Polar bears are basically Grizzly cousins. There is very very little difference (although superficially we thought they was a lot more distance between them genetically)

With Noahs Ark and the 'Kinds' we would be looking at one kind of Cat.
This might even be a Cat that no longer exists in itself anymore (like the Sabre Tooth Tiger)
So there would not be three billion species (again.. I dont know what you think a 'species' means?)

Theres no real problem here. We know all Cats have a common ancestor.

[off tangent - a nature show i watched suggested that cats AND dogs both come from a common 'hyena' type ancestor.. which seems outlandish to me]


Right, in 4,000 or so supposed years since the flood. This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It does support evolution though, ironically enough. The Bible doesn't support it though. But, let us assume that by some miracle (God is good at those) this actually happened. Now how did all of those animals get from the Mountains of Ararat to where they are today? Penguins, (I like them as you probably have noticed) how did penguins (or whatever non-specific Bird that Noah took) evolve into penguins and then get to Antarctica, an environment in which no bird native to the middle east could hope to survive for more than two hours? How did kangaroos and wallabies get to Australia? Did they swim? Did they fly?
You can laugh all you want but you will probably feel silly when you see how quickly natural selection can weed out genetics that dont suit the environment.
Domestic cats brought over to North America who then were separated into the wild managed to eliminate short-hair genes within a few dozen generations (and brutal winters).
The 'bush' coloured ones faired better than the colourful ones and now the descendants are 'camoflauged' quite nicely.

A 'man-made' version is Dog-Breeding. New Breeds were bred out very quickly.. although this is mans hand pushing the genes - dont think dramatic climate changes wouldnt be just as effective.

Speaking of which........ your next question of 'how did they get there?'

IF you are going to premise the argument on 'Lets say The flood story was true...."
then please stick with that.

After the landing on Mr.Ararat we can guess all the animals went off on their merry ways.
It was not until AFTER those days that we see the Earth divided.

As you would expect - gene pools became 'cut off' from others and consequently you would find unique 'kinds' on the separated continents.

Believe me.. animals can move and travel huge distances and we see that happening in just one or two generations today.
Coyotes are now a regular feature west of the Rockies.. and they USED to be a Prairie animal just a few generations ago.
(Grizzlies too.. in fact. .. many people are stunned to know Grizzlies used to be Prairie dwellers just a few generations ago!)

So the only animals alvie just happened to be in Naoh's backyard so to speak? Was the rest of the world devoid of life? Specific geography does not matter. What matter is the size of the planet and the fact that life must have been present nearly everywhere.
We dont know exactly what the Earth was like back then but we make some assumptions based on the text and our own discoveries.
The Earth was not divided.
The Earth was full of huge tropical vegetation
Animal kinds may have lived 'everywhere'

I really dont see any problem here. At worst case - he was importing animal kinds from different regions.
This is not 'crazy talk' since we know full well Babylonians, Greeks, Romans all did the same things.


Of course he didn't do it alone, he has his sons Shem, Ham ,and Japheth. Nothing at all ever is mentioned about him having a giant work crew. Even if he did it does not matter. Even with every piece of modern ship building know how and technology a viable wooden boat that big simply cannot be built. It is not a question of having a crew or not. People have tried, most within the past 100 years, to build wooden boats that big and failed. How then was Noah (and his supposed crew) able to do it so effortlessly.
No.. its doesnt say he had a crew - but when you read 'Herod built a Temple it doesnt explicitly say he had thousands of contractors either.

I have no idea why you keep emphasising 'Wooden' but let me assure you that wood does indeed float.
I cant imagine why anyone would actually try and rebuild a life-sized Ark but I do know that many people have re-created models and...
... Yep.. it floats just fine thanks.
[I will say this... to my knowledge no one is 100% sure what kind of wood 'Gopher wood' is meant to be in our modern class. It was obviously some plentiful wood of the day]

Okay, so the question remains then. How did he get all of the animals? You say that he didn't go and get them. Did they come to him? Or did he have a crew for that too? Did he have a crew for chopping down all of the trees? From milling the lumber? A crew for drying and curing it? For bringing it to the construction site? For making all of tools, many of which would have to have been designed from the ground up for such an immense project? If he had crews for all of this we are now in the realm of tens of thousands of people working on the ark.

I dont agree with your estimate of 'tens of thousands'.

It would definately take hundreds of men.
Not all were necessarily labourers - many may have been only hired to move or transport.
Basically - this is no different than anything else you would build .. now or then.

I really dont know why this presents a dilema for you?

Yes.. its pretty amazing!

So was the Colossus at Rhodes or the Pyramids.. i agree!

The Ark would not necessarily compare to the Pyramids but yes... its an amazing construction for sure!

[ncsu123]

good story, they havent found any geological evidence to support the flood though

[Brocktoon]

good story, they havent found any geological evidence to support the flood though
Ya, I hate to tell you this NCSU - but you are about 20 years behind on your geology ;)

Seriously though. Yes there is plenty of obvious evidence all the world has been underwater at some point.
What you are probably getting stuck on is the 'how many times' and over 'how long' debates.

While everyone agrees there has been a flood at any place on earth - Some say these were thousands and even milllions of 'localised floods'.

Of course, those who stick with Noah believe it was one gigantic flood at one time.

Midnight, I think you were watching the documentary (ies) regarding the Mesopatamian Basin?
For those who hadnt heard its a funny story...

Back in the 'Iron Curtain' days the Russians were doing their own thing in the Caspian sea.
While down there - they came across a rather stunning little thing... An entire beach front way beneath the shores.
After a few decades of uncovering the beachlines around the sea it was pretty clear there was only one possible explanation by default.
(assuming someone didnt build an ancient beach at submarine level ;)

So the Russians knew that the whole area had been flooded at some point in history.. and it was a massive flood at that. (were talking Noah sized flood!)

Nowadays its pretty much self-evident to everyone (of all sciences) there was indeed a massive deluge.
This time, many critics of Genesis say that while ..Yes, there is historical and scientific proof of a 'world' flood - they insist that it was 'Noahs World' only. (The Mesopotamia region of Earth)
They argue that 'to Noah' it would appear as if the entire planet itself was flooded since this was the 'whole world' to their minds.

... Another interesting change over here in my part of the world...

As you may know - you can climb to some of the highest peaks in the Rocky Mountains, break apart some Shale and find fossilised Marine life.
For as long as I can recall the 'official' explanation was that originally these were 'sea beds' but then the mountains were formed after the fossils and uplifted to these heights.

Somewhere in the last 10 years (i dont recall any announcements) the 'official' explanation was discarded and now they are saying the Rockies were indeed full of water. Huge gigantic lakes filled all the valleys.

Scientific explanations continue to change but oddly, they are always getting closer and closer to the original account of Noah it seems.

[Professor Jumbo]

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits [SNIP] or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
So we are agreed so far, more or less anyway. My calculations, probably using a slightly larger cubit, came to a total volume of 1.618 million cubic feet.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars.
Hold on there, just where did you get this firgure of "16,000 animals"?
However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.Oh, he didn't take the insects did he? Where then did they come from or how did they survive the flood?


Ive seen this forumla worked out by numerous different people and it does work out if you assume that we are looking at young animals.
Some suggest that something like Alligators or birds might even have been taken in the egg stages too. (well.. thats sensible)
Really? How was Noah able to incubate the eggs? Once the egs hatched, the birds eggs anyway, how did the baby birds survive? All bird species require adult birds to feed the baby birds for anywhere from two weeks to several months. And don't try and tell me that Noah did it. There is simply no way that he could have known about and found all of the required food even if he did he would never have had time to do anything else, epecially after the flood was over and he and the baby birds were left on a desolate and barren landscape. Also, if he took only eggs of some species, how did he know that he was taking one male and one female? You can't tell just by looking at the outside of the egg.



With Noahs Ark and the 'Kinds' we would be looking at one kind of Cat.
This might even be a Cat that no longer exists in itself anymore (like the Sabre Tooth Tiger)
So there would not be three billion species (again.. I dont know what you think a 'species' means?)
"Species" is the most specific classification in the Linnean hierarchy which is as follows: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Sometimes "subphylum" is included between Phylum and class. Two animals of opposite sex can be said to be of the same species of they can breed and produce fertile offspring. For example, while horse and donkey can breed and produce offspring they are not of the same species since their offsrping, mules, are infertile. Fertile Mules have been known to exist as result of some genetic mutation, but once we get into the realm of genetic mutation we are talking about something completely different. But I had figured that you already knew all of this, it is fairly elementary.


Theres no real problem here. We know all Cats have a common ancestor. Okay, what's your point? We also know that amphibians evolved from fish, that reptiles evolved from amphibians, that dinosaurs evloved from reptiles, that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and that mammals evolved from reptiles as well. So why didn't Noah just take a couple of lung fish on the ark and hope that they evolved back into everything else?

You can laugh all you want but you will probably feel silly when you see how quickly natural selection can weed out genetics that dont suit the environment.
Domestic cats brought over to North America who then were separated into the wild managed to eliminate short-hair genes within a few dozen generations (and brutal winters).
The 'bush' coloured ones faired better than the colourful ones and now the descendants are 'camoflauged' quite nicely.

A 'man-made' version is Dog-Breeding. New Breeds were bred out very quickly.. although this is mans hand pushing the genes - dont think dramatic climate changes wouldnt be just as effective.
Except that all of these examples assume a fairly large base population to begin with. Noah took only two of each animal. While natural selection can happen very quickly, it is also the case that the animlas involve die more often than they live. This is exactly how it works, all of the unfit animals die out leaving only the fit ones. From base populations of two Noah would have had to have taken super animals that could survive every single climate on earth.


I'll get to the rest of your post later, I have to go now. I will, however, leave you with this. When the flood was over the ark landed high up in the mountians on a now totally lifeless planet, so what did the animals eat? What, for example, did the Lions eat? The only animlas that the Lions could have eaten happened to be the last of their kind. So did the Lions cause extinctions? How about Tigers, what did they eat? What did alligators eat, what did the predatory birds eat? How about herbivorious animals. Since all plant life would have been wiped out in the flood what did they eat? For that matter what did Noah and his family eat?

[cerridwen]

professor, I really think that you're over-thinking this whole topic.

[Brocktoon]

ProfessorJ,

Ya,, I think whats happening is your supplying an Ark-full of What-ifs.
Nothing wrong with that either but you get us into a situation where there is a solution or problem to any of these 'What-ifs'.

How did they get food?
Ok.. maybe Noah had lots of provisions.
Maybe he didnt?
Maybe they feasted on carcasses and washed up vegetation?

Then you can say - "Well what if the vegetation was rotten!"

Let me address two issues I think you might be misunderstaning a bit:

When we talk about natural selection, we dont need millions of years. This is not speaking of upward evolution where new genetic information is appearing in each generation over millions of generations.

Natural selection can work extremely fast.
If you have a sibling - you might have noticed that you selected a lot of different genes from your parents than they did!

Depending on climates and random gene pool separations - the 'Siblings' of the Parent Cats (were just guessing it was Sabretooths) could become Lions and Tigers very very quickly!

.........

Just to clarify something - there were two of every kind, but in the case of what they called 'Clean animals' there were 5 extra ones.

So something like Cats would have a base population of Seven.
This is probably Three 'pairs' and one extra.
(again.. we are just assuming he didnt take 7 males lol)

You need to keep in mind - the original 'kinds' had ALL the genetic variations that any of the offspring may select.
Our 'SabreTooth' Cat would have all the possible genetic information which could be found in any type of Cat today.

.......

I honestly dont know how to incubate eggs so you might have a good point on that one?
Maybe there were two birds and the eggs didnt count as birds until hatched??

[campbell34]

Yeah, right the flood really happened. It really is fantastically pathetic that people still think that it occured.

How did Noah get all of the animals? Where did he get the penguins for example? The temperature and salinity changes that would have occured in the oceans in such a flood would have destroyed all sea life, so how did he get all of the fish and whales and corals (yes corals are animals, not plants) on the boat? All plant life would have been wiped out, so how did Noah and the animals survive after the flood? While on the ark what did the Lions eat? Where did Noah keep all of the food anyhow. Come to think of it, where did he put the animals? The combined mass and the combined volume of two of every animal species is far great than a boat that size could have contained. Did God shrink the animals down real small? How did Noah keep the animals alive? He would have needed a massive powersupply to keep all of the various rooms properly climate controlled, penguins and alligators cannot live in the same environment. Where did the water for the flood come from? Where did it go? To completely cover the earth in forty days the rain would have had to have been so intense as to be the equivalent of a fire hose spraying down on every single square inch of the planet's surface. The heat generated thereby (yes this would generate quite alot of heat) would have been great enough to boil the oceans.

Some people believe the flood never happened. Yet if that is true, could someone please explain why they are finding Pillar lava on the top of mount Ararat. You see, pillar lava can only occure when a volcanic vent is underwater. So my question is, why are they finding pillar lava at 14,000 feet?

[bandit28]

Ok, so it is evident that a few people refuse to believe the flood actualy happened. It's ok though. We run into this type of thing often. First off(non believers really hate this) this is God's plan here. I really don't know how Noah was able to feed all the animals or keep everything clean(sanitation wise). I do have my own opinions on some of these matters, however, let's look at the basic problem here. It isn't just the fact that non believers see this as imposable, it's more along the fact that they do not want to accept anything they don't or can't understand. So, in that same logic(where a non believer refuses to believe) let's ask a deeper question that relates in a way to the repopulation of the earth. I wonder, if God didn't create us, and we evolved from some micro organic life form that formed from some electric storm out in sea, how did we as humans become so many? Oh, and how did we all become so different? Wait, and how did we get all over the earth? I honestly have no clue as to what or how you would answer this without creation in mind. Point is, we humans are very different from each other, and we are spread all over this world. Amazingly, this topic is spoke of in The Bible.

Now, some people will ask "Ok, well, then what about proof? Ah ha, we couldn't get ya on how, but we got ya now on proof". Well, hold on a second. First off, lets look at the layout of the world in it's current form. I am sure you all remeber from way back in the day at school that big ole world map laid out flat. Did you ever notice how each continent looked like a puzzle piece? Were you ever tempted to cut each one out and tape them back together? It really is amazing to see how it all fit's together. So, we are now at a time when the world as we know it was different. When everything is together and not spread out. "Ok, but that still doesn't proove anything" LOL, hold on a sec, I'm not finnished. So Noah build the ark, and In Genesis 6:19–20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+6:19-20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on), the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the 'clean' animals) were brought by God to the Ark(that answers your question of how all the animals were gathered). This would also include those ever popular dinosaurs. "Hold on hold on, wait a minute, you are telling me now that not only you believe the great flood happened, but that also dinosaurs were onboard and alive at the same time man was? This doesn't proove anything except that you are insaine!" Yes yes, I know, a lot of non believers feel this way. Let me continue will you? In the end this will all come together. We all know and believe that dinosaurs existed at some point and time on this earth. We also know that in order to find proof of these dinosaurs one must look under the surface of the earth. Now, those wonderful evolutionists would say that these great animals(and not all dinosaurs were big) died from some huge meteor that struck the earth and killed everything living on it(wich odly enough means that the whole evolution process had to start from scratch again). Here is what I say. God gathered all the animals for Noah to put on the Ark.."WAIT!!! Dinosaurs wern't around then! They.." Hold on..you sure do interupt a lot. In the book of Job, you read of some things happening to a man. I quote Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Archives



Job, due to his great suffering, criticized the working of Jehovah in his life. Accordingly, the Lord, in a devastating examination of the patriarch, illustrated His own power and wisdom (and, by contrast, Job’s pathetic ignorance) with a series of examples from nature (Job 38-41). In this connection, reference is made in chapter 40 to a creature known as “behemoth” (vv. 15-24).

Though the Hebrew term can be used of “beasts” in general (cf. Deut. 28:26), in Job 40 there is an obvious reference to a specific animal. The plural form of the noun, together with the fact that it is used with singular verbs and pronouns, indicates that a great beast is in view. Because the translators did not know what type of creature was under consideration in this context, they left the word untranslated, hence, the anglicized form “behemoth” appears in our common versions.

For lack of a better theory, most scholars have identified this animal with the hippopotamus (cf. ASV fn). A careful analysis of the context, however, will reveal that the hippopotamus does not fit the description of behemoth as given by the Lord. Consider the following factors.

It is believed by some scholars that behemoth is related to an Egyptian term, peheme, roughly rendered “ox of the water.” That this did not denote a hippopotamus is evidenced by the fact that the Egyptians had other words for that creature.
In Job’s narrative behemoth is described as a grass-eater that is very strong, with great muscles (15-16). He moves his tail like a cedar tree (17). Even Frances Anderson, who identifies this creature as a hippo, admits: “It is hard to see how his tail can be compared to a cedar, for the tail of the hippopotamus is small and short” (Commentary on Job, London: Tyndale, 1976, p. 276). Behemoth’s skeleton is like a massive framework of brass and iron (18). He is “chief” (i.e., first in size, might) of the works (creatures) of God; so huge, in fact, that only his Maker dare approach him with the sword (19).

Though the hippo weighs about four tons, some dinosaurs weighed thirty tons! Behemoth is so powerful that no man is able to capture him (24). This descriptive can hardly apply to the hippopotamus for Egyptian monuments frequently picture warriors attacking the hippo single-handed. The vegetation of whole mountains is said to supply this behemoth’s food, yet the hippopotamus eats only about 200 pounds of herbage daily, and he stays near the water. One is almost forced to conclude that no creature on earth today fits the detailed description of behemoth in Job 40. Not only is that proof from the Biblical aspect, but he also provides proof from the historical aspect, and I quote



There is a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary. In 1970 newspapers reported the discovery of cave paintings in Zimbabwe. The paintings were made by bushmen who ruled that area from about 1500 B.C., until a couple of hundred years ago. Along with accurate representations of the elephant and the giraffe, is a painting of an Apatosaurus (brontosaurus). These art works have greatly puzzled scientists since bushmen are known to have painted from real life! (Bible-Science Newsletter, April 15, 1970, p. 2). About seventy years ago, Dr. Samuel Hubbard, curator of archaeology in the Oakland (California) Museum, discovered dinosaur carvings on the cliff walls of the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. One remarkable carving resembles a Tyrannosaurus. Nearby, dinosaur tracks were preserved in the rock surface. (For a picture of this carving, see our book, The Mythology of Modern Geology (http://www.courierpublications.com/), 1990 edition, p. 31.)

[bandit28]

300 characters to long, had to break it up:


Ok? Can I continue now? "Hrmm, ok go on". Alrighty then. So, now Noah has all the creatures God gathered, and the great flood begins. Now so many years later, we see that there is loads of evidence burried underground of what happened in the past. Let me ask you, when you stand on the beach at the shore line and let the water go over your feet, what happens? Your feet begin to get covered in sand correct? Well look at what we have here...A huge flood, covering the entire world and evintualy burying everything. "Wait wait WAIT. What about human fossils?" Good question, you don't miss much do you? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. At least four of the ten individuals are female. One is an infant. Some of the bones are articulated. Some are not, appearing to have been washed into place. No obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the bones. The bulldozer driver who uncovered the first bones in 1971 expresses certainty that there were no tunnels or cracks in the extremely hard overlying layers of rock. The bones are partially replaced with malachite (a green mineral) and turquoise, thus appropriately named "Malachite Man".

The evidence appears obvious that these 10 men, woman and children, were buried rapidly by some catastrophe, like a flood. Articulated skeletons indicate rapid burial. Some propose to explain these bones by arguing that they were mining, when the mine collapsed. However there is no indication of tunnels, and woman and small children would not likely be included in a mining operation. Additionally, no tools have been found and there are no crushed bones which would be expected if the mine caved in. Another invalid explanation is that this is a mass grave and they were buried. This cannot be true because the living would have to dig a grave 50-100 feet deep through extremely hard sandstone layers. The modern mining operation was halted in the 1970's because the sandstone was so hard it was destroying the bulldozers. These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time! Well, there ya have it. We Christians believe in The Word of God. God shows us evidence that can't be denied(though in the end, many will still refute it). From the gathering of the animals, to the building of the Ark, to the great flood that wiped out the earth, to the evidence left behind, we Christians believe in The Word of God.

[bandit28]

Does this mean we have believers now? A whole day without anyone replying. Praise The Lord!

[bandit28]

Awwww come on, no more debate? Ok, so if everyone here now believes that the flood happened, that means you are admiting that God exists. Now it is just plane ole denial if you refuse Jesus Christ.

[campbell34]

Awwww come on, no more debate? Ok, so if everyone here now believes that the flood happened, that means you are admiting that God exists. Now it is just plane ole denial if you refuse Jesus Christ.
Great job man. It's hard for the other side to debate when all the evidence is on your side. Keep up the good work.

[mother_nature's_son]

A 450 foot boat made of wood would sink. Steel reinforcement would be necessary to keep it’s shape. Not even 19th century engineers could build a boat that big out of wood alone. The wood would distort in the water, and without steel reinforcement, would spring hundreds of leaks.

Not only that but, the amount of water needed to flood the continents cannot be found in the oceans, ice caps, rocks, or atmosphere -all combined-. If water was pumped out from inside earth's crust, it would carry with it noxious sulfur rich gases that would leave creatures unable to breathe.

A global flood would have changed the atmosphere of the earth to the point that the water vapor dissolved in the air would cause creatures to drown by breathing and atmospheric pressure would crush lungs.

[bandit28]

Really? Can yuo proove it? Or is it just speculation and math? Have you attempted to build a boat that size? Have you caused it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights to see what would happen? Perhaps we were at a lower elevation at that time. Your science and theories are no match for hard evidence such as what I have give nyou. Try as you might, in the end, you will fail.

[mother_nature's_son]

Have you attempted to build a boat that size? That's the thing- nobody has attempted to build a boat that size out of wood alone, because it would sink. Engineering and physics, its very simple.

Perhaps we were at a lower elevation at that time.Lower elevation, as in, higher sea level? This would just mean that less water is locked up in glaciers at the poles. Either way, the water needed to flood the continents does not exist -oceans, glaciers, rocks, and atmosphere- combined.

Your science and theories are no match for hard evidence such as what I have give nyou. Try as you might, in the end, you will fail.huh?
I have not seen you give any 'hard evidence'.
I am going to fail? What do you mean? Fail what?

[Spiritforces]

Bandit28

Technically, do you think there is a difference between understanding there has been a great flood (this is depicted in most religion and cults older than Torah)
and call himself a Christian?

[Brocktoon]

That's the thing- nobody has attempted to build a boat that size out of wood alone, because it would sink. Engineering and physics, its very simple.
Yes, its very simple.
Unfortunately, not the way you have assumed.

They have re-created Noahs Ark in numerous scaled models (which is really a 'Barge') and it most certainly does float.
There is every reason to believe it was re-inforced with iron, however, all wood boats can work.
Engineering and Physics is how it works. Simple indeed.

Lower elevation, as in, higher sea level? This would just mean that less water is locked up in glaciers at the poles. Either way, the water needed to flood the continents does not exist -oceans, glaciers, rocks, and atmosphere- combined.
I wish you could see the terrible mistake you are making.
You propose that 'If' such a cataclysm ever happened it would 'therefore' completely re-arrange the environment as we know it.
Then..
(and watch this)
You presume the conditions of the earth were both the same before and after this hypothetical cataclysm!?

'IF' the earth was flooded like that, then how in the world of all things logical would or could we assume the earth was 'the same' as it is now?
Certainly this would be the 'aftermath' and whatever was prior would certainly be different.

huh?
I have not seen you give any 'hard evidence'.
I am going to fail? What do you mean? Fail what?
Im not going to call for you to 'Fail' or anything like that.

Im just going to encourage you to investigate well-inderstood scientific findings demonstrating (not theorising) that there most certainly was a massive flood in (at least) the Black Sea region.

It well understood and Universally agreed that most any part of the earth has been either underwater or awashed in sediment at 'some point'.

This is why seashells are found on mountain tops and dinosaurs found encased in hardened mud.

So, 'IF' you are going to insist the world hasn't been flooded then you will probably fail alright.

You 'Can' attempt to prove these were millions of 'localised' floods' over 'millions of years.
Yes - you have a chance that way.

btw.. one of many articles on the now universally understood 'Great Flood' you can check out this article.
(NOT a 'Creation Science' website but a Petroleum Researcher Site)
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/1999/04apr/greatflood.html

[mother_nature's_son]

They have re-created Noahs Ark in numerous scaled models (which is really a 'Barge') and it most certainly does float.
There is every reason to believe it was re-inforced with iron, however, all wood boats can work.Please offer a link where I can see a 450 foot 'barge' that is made completely out of wood float on a stormy ocean for 40 days and 40 nights.

And no, there is no reason to believe it was reinforced with iron because the bible describes it's construction and it says nothing about iron.

I wish you could see the terrible mistake you are making.
You propose that 'If' such a cataclysm ever happened it would 'therefore' completely re-arrange the environment as we know it.Brock, you seem to be confused here.

I say- 'A global flood would have changed the atmosphere of the earth to the point that the water vapor dissolved in the air would cause creatures to drown by breathing and atmospheric pressure would crush lungs.'

I said nothing about 'a complete re-arrangement of the environment'. I spoke exclusively of earth's atmosphere.

Then..
(and watch this)
You presume the conditions of the earth were both the same before and after this hypothetical cataclysm!?Brock, brother, I presumed nothing about 'the CONDITIONS of earth' pre and post flood. You are exaggerating your terms greatly.

What I have done, -pre and post flood-, is safely presumed that the amount of water we find on earth (oceans, atmosphere, rocks, and glaciers) has not changed.

'IF' the earth was flooded like that, then how in the world of all things logical would or could we assume the earth was 'the same' as it is now?
Certainly this would be the 'aftermath' and whatever was prior would certainly be different.I never assumed that, pre and post flood, 'the EARTH was the same'. You are giving a completely false impression of what I said.

I said the amount of water that exists on our planet is the same!

Water re-cycles itself on earth, it does not leave the atmosphere. The amount of water that existed 2,000 years ago, still exists now -and it has never been enough to completely flood the continents-.

Im just going to encourage you to investigate well-inderstood scientific findings demonstrating (not theorising) that there most certainly was a massive flood in (at least) the Black Sea region.I am familiar with this flood and Robert Ballard's research of it. The Black Sea flood happens to be a perfect model for an event that birthed legends of a world-wide flood among ancient peoples in that area of the world.

[Brocktoon]

"I am familiar with this flood and Robert Ballard's research of it. The Black Sea flood happens to be a perfect model for an event that birthed legends of a world-wide flood among ancient peoples in that area of the world."
So lets just stop and agree on this much.

This is pretty signifigant and worth stopping and examing.
Have no idea why you wouldnt even mention this before?

We can all agree that a massive flood did indeed cover this part of the earth.

It fine if you want to believe it could not have covered more of the earth or that it happened 7,000 years ago and not 5,000.

However,

Worth mentioning next time you suggest there is nothing to the flood accounts.
You all but agreed there WAS a cataclysmic flood.
Come on.

[mother_nature's_son]

Worth mentioning next time you suggest there is nothing to the flood accounts. You all but agreed there WAS a cataclysmic flood.
Come on.Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.

I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.


Have no idea why you wouldnt even mention this before?
Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.

[campbell34]

Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.

I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.


Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.
If there was not a WORLDWIDE flood, could someone explain why they are finding pillar lava at the 14,000 foot altitude on mount Ararat? Pillar lava can only be formed when a volcanic vent is submerged underwater.

[mother_nature's_son]

If there was not a WORLDWIDE flood, could someone explain why they are finding pillar lava at the 14,000 foot altitude on mount Ararat? Pillar lava can only be formed when a volcanic vent is submerged underwater.
Ok, first you are going to have to elaborate on, or specify, what this 'pillar lava' is that you speak of.

[Brocktoon]

Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.
Then you can go back and note to yourself that I never asserted otherwise.

I DID mention that you have (until now) failed to mention that you do believe in a cataclysmic flood that whiped out the 'known world' or Ancient Mesopotamia and virtualy all of its terrestrial life.

This is pretty signifigant when you are making the claim a world-wide flood never happened.
You might want to mention your belief in a cataclysmic flood in the beginning so we all have a point of agreement to begin with?

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.
'Thus it followed' that you brought up another distinct assertion unto itself that the boat as described in Genesis could not float.
Though Scale models of this boat DO FLOAT - you changed it to a demand to see an actual size boat.

You also insisted iron rods could not have been used becasue the general diagram and instructions did not specify it.
So now you insist it was 'All wood' and did not have anything else.

According to you - it did not have a rudder, bathrooms or dove-tailed woodwork because 'It does not state that'?


I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.
No it does not seem that way.


Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.
How does the word 'Because' start this assertion.
Never mind.

Do you actually intend to 'Disprove' the Worldwide flood by agreeing that there was a massive Black Sea Flood?
This should be fascinating to watch!

[Brocktoon]

Just want to pop in here while I have the links on the clipboard...


Im a little bit concerned when Critics OR Christians believe they have read 'facts' when they only read someones uninformed opinion or speculation.

A good example are 'Skeptic' sites which 'sound' like they are scientifically backed when in actuality are simply 'saying things' they 'feel like'.

Many 'articles' will simply state (as if some understood research) that there is no way to account for all the water needed to flood the earth.

A reader wanting to believe them will often be convinced he 'now knows' this is an established principle without questioning 'WHY' the skeptic has stated this.

Christians are too often guilty of this too.
"They HAVE found Noah's Ark..."
Not realising that this is an opinion you read - NOT an actual fact. Even if it was presented, as if, it was 'decided'.

Two responsible links explaining why the entire Earth was flooded.


Anyway. Where did this water come from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
Where did it go?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

Critics now have to admit there was .. at a minimum .. a massive flood in, at least, the Black Sea region centuries ago.
What is 'Sheer Balls' is that they are actually trying to 'turn this around' for their own argument.
LMAO!
Sorta like "Ya .. ok.. Ok we will 'Give you' that a small cataclysmic flood did happen yes... but we demand you drop the bigger charges"

But seriously.. here is a link on that:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/crs-blacksea.html

Since no one is going to build an life-sized version of the Ark (and we dont know [i]precisely its shape or specific details anyway)
we have to do our best at re-creating it on paper (or in scale versions)

here is a comprehensive study (Somewhat complicated for those of us not handy with 'mathy stuff')
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_ArkSafety.asp
[some critics think it left out 'Forward Velocity' for what that is worth]

Just for fun - there is certainly a very good explanation for how 'all the animals' got on the Ark.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

[mother_nature's_son]

I DID mention that you have (until now) failed to mention that you do believe in a cataclysmic flood that whiped out the 'known world' or Ancient Mesopotamia and virtualy all of its terrestrial life.

This is pretty signifigant when you are making the claim a world-wide flood never happened.
This is absolutely NOT significant when claiming that a worldwide flood never happened! The Black Sea is what, like 2% of the area of the Earth's surface?

The way that the Black Sea flood relates to Noah's flood, is that the Black Sea flood is a perfect model for what spurred the mythological creation of Noah's flood.

Im sure you know that the Black Sea flood is very well understood by science.

Do you actually intend to 'Disprove' the Worldwide flood by agreeing that there was a massive Black Sea Flood?
This should be fascinating to watch!
So you are just incapable then, of seeing the difference between a flood the size of a lake and a flood that completely covers the continents of Earth?

[POPthree13]

Just for fun - there is certainly a very good explanation for how 'all the animals' got on the Ark.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
I think 'very good explanation' is a bit of an overstatement. First the article states there are 1 Million species and begins to break this down. There are about 1.8 Million NAMED species and scientist assume that there are between 5 and 20 million TOTAL species on earth. Most of which, obviously, await discovery. Now, of course you have to remove all sea dwelling creatures, which do accoutn for a lot of them, but there are still over 700,000 NAMED animals which need to be captured in pairs. That's 1.4 million animals in an ark the size of your average Super Wal Mart store. If he could find and capture a pair of animals every hour (without any cars, planes or engines to move him around) and he collected 24 hours a day it would only take 160 years to get them all collected. Now how he got to Australia and South and North America to capture all the animals found ONLY Here is another question altogether.

The article you link to says that Noah could have captured as few as 2000 animals (or 1000 species) there are over 3,500 species of land mammals alone - thats 7000 animals right there. Where they get their bogus info is quite beyond my imagination. Then of course he had to feed and water them... which your article just says they wen't 'dormant'. Ummmm.. OK. But even when animals go dormant (which very few do, and CERTAINLY not for 371 days) they consume tremendous amounts of food before they hibernate - which is generally only for a couple of months.

This story, interpretted word for word is just completely infeesible. Did a flood happen in the middle east around the time indicated in the bible? It sure as hell could of. Great floods are recorded throughout history... Did a man build an ark and then manage to trap EVERY species on earth with primative technologies, no real scientific classification system, and no motorized trasit? I seriously question your intelligence if you buy it. Even the Croc Hunter in all his glory could do no such thing.

PS: I love how your link suggests Dinosaur fossils are the evidence of the flood. Dinosaurs walked the earth 248 TO 65 million YEARS AGO... when was that flood? ;)

[mother_nature's_son]

Im a little bit concerned when Critics OR Christians believe they have read 'facts' when they only read someones uninformed opinion or speculation.Just like you are doing with your links right now?

Anyway. Where did this water come from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.htmlThis link presents 2 theories for where the water came from.

1. It came from the Earth's crust through volcanic activity.
2. It came from a vapor canopy.

The link itself says that number 2 is no longer thought of as a significant source of flood waters.

So that leaves number 1 which, incidently, I previously mentioned.

"If water [enough to flood the continents] was pumped out from inside earth's crust, it would carry with it noxious sulfur rich gases that would leave creatures unable to breathe."

Where did it go?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
This link claims- The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.

Anybody who knows anything about plate tectonics knows that this claim is complete foolishness.

Tectonic plates move mere inches a year, and this link is claiming they moved hundreds or thousands of feet at the end of a 40 day flood.

Even though it is impossible, if tectonics plates moved as much as they say at the end of this flood, earthquakes would abound across the entire surface of the Earth. The tidal waves created by this would be unfathomably large. The sea would swallow Noah's ark in an instant.

More information on how it is impossible that tectonic plates ever moved that fast is available upon request.


Critics now have to admit there was .. at a minimum .. a massive flood in, at least, the Black Sea region centuries ago.
What is 'Sheer Balls' is that they are actually trying to 'turn this around' for their own argument.

Why can't you see the difference between a lake flood and a world flood?

Explain to me, Brock, how the Black Sea flood relates to the authenticity of Noah's flood.

[Brocktoon]

So we all agree that the evidence is overwhelming that a massive flood overtook the Black Sea region. (actually what we think is that the Black Sea was the source) The Flood in question is NOT 'The Black Sea' 'flooding over' but rather a massive deluge over a good size peice of the Earth!

Now I notice we are also being forced (by overwhelming research) to agree that most regions of the Earth have been under water at some point.

I think we can stop debating whether or not the planet has ever been flooded.

The disagreement is now about 'How'.

Was it thousands of massive (yet localised) floods - 0r - did it happen during one cataclysmic year?

Did it happen 700 trillion years ago (or much more recently as some theorise, , say two million?)
Or did these happen 5,000 years ago?
(coinciding with the beginning of known human history)

For the guy wondering why Dinosaurs are included as 'evidence' of a world-wide flood:
Its because Dinosaurs (and not limited to) are found fossilised in sediment all over the world.
As to Dinosaurs living 20 million years ago - that is your guesstimate, not mine.

[StonerBill]

it seems this has gone around in teh cilces, for teh good half hour ive been reading thsi thread.

brock's main problems in his arguements is this (though he has been putting up a butter show than that other guy who pretended to be a 'non-bleiver himself showing all teh rpoof and ending up making himself look like an idiot and having no replies)

brock is trying to claim that certain events such as evolution and tectonic movement can all be done over a short amount of time. evolution really is misunderstood by probably over 90% of teh worlds population. evolution is an incredibly alrge scale thing and tehre are many levels of it.

there is low level evolution, such as colour, senses, fur lenght, body size, etc. these things can change very quickly. however waht cant change quickly is body structure. although they may look similar, the physical structure of a sabretooth tiger is incredibly different to that of, say, a persian cat. that sort of evolution takes much more than a few generations. that sort of evolution takes much more than 10 000 years or however long beleievers think teh world as we know it has been around. the cats are jsut a small one though, look at more distinctive species like reptiles, which vary even greater. this is still keping to lower level evolution than most of teh evolution that has created our world.

but if those issues are brought up thenw e can discuss them more tehre are more thigns to come indeed.

insects. they have alrgely been neglected. insects are a very different case for these arguements for lots of insects like ants, there are not males and females, there are very complex social orders that cannot surive wihtout precise environments.
tehre are so many types on insects its almsot unbelievable. most insects also dont live for 40 days so they dhave to be breeding and stuff on the boat.

oh yer you said noah would have supplies, but over 40 days, an ark's worth of animals would eat more than an arc's worht of food so youd need to review all your calculations.

some insects would have been on animals, but thats negligable in the whole scheme of it all.

anyway ive made a few points on evolution im rather restless and hungry atm so ill keep going and other topics can be adressed when they come.

tectonic movment, as was mentioned, cannot occur over a short period of time. the earth was one thing, millions and millions of years ago. IF the flood theory was based back then, it would have a HELL of a lot more evidence supporting it, but christians beleve less than a nhundred thuosand years even is enough.
the earth moves anc changes shape all teh tiem but its very slow. so slow most people cant comprehend it. its such a long and drawn out process that it cannot happen quickly. as said, earthquakes would occur. waves.

do they teach this stuff at school in america? tectonic movement largely requires the slow moving apart of plates, which then buckle of overlap eachother oat one end, but they cant keep going unless they get filled in behind by molten rock. if tectonic plates moved as fast as you can claim, then there would not be a normal earth as we know it, tehre would be huge sectiosn of very plain, very new rock over the centere of waht was poriginally the massive continent. this is no there. there is a very slow, and very old patturn showing of incredibly slow movement. the age of rock and the movement is all recorded in relation to the rock aorund it and tehre is more scientific evidence that the world is fuckin old than fuckin new.

the volcanic rock on top of the mountain is EASILY explained. the mountain was under water once, yes, tectonic movement allows rock from even below our current seabed to move up to a high of a mountian. thats why tehres fossils at certain highs on different mountains. scientists, in many cases not all, have found that the age of teh rock will contain similar samples to otehr ages, even thuogh their height varies greatly. in some cases, there indeed were seas atmountian level. millions of years ago, land levels may have been higher or lower, depending on the pressure of the magma beneath certain areas, and the rest of hte world. parts of australia were once submerged. but also, parts of australia were once very low, and moved up high, with a different situation to simply having a high water level.

oh and when teh flood water was coming down, why did noahs boat not get affected by the torrential rain, as was pointed out, would be incredibly feirce? waht about all the other thuosands of boats?

im sorta rushing i think i hope you can undestand waht im saying

anyway umm as i said before im restless and hungry and im sorta loosing track of waht im saying caus ive come into teh discussion so late.

but a question is: why dont christians have enough faith in their god to jsut assume he used his almighty powers to answer any of the unanswered questions? god was and is apparently , all-powerful. an omnipotent being would surely be able to create the space and resources within the arc to house the animals hed surely be able to then spread the animals around teh world jsut as he gathered them. in fact why the held he even do that? why didnt he jsut make mroe animals? after the 7 days did he loose all creation powrs? why not create a ledge above the flood that they could live on? why not leave a protion of the earth unflooded for the animals to live while teh rest of teh world was underwater. he can do it, jsut liek teh waters parted for moses.

cant he?

*evil and non-beleiverishly*
or was he jsut ahving fun killing off the world because they were meany poos and didnt worship him, and wanted to jsut give noah a little help caus his wife was hot?

[bandit28]

Here is an idea, when you die, right before God judges you, you can ask Him. Perhaps He will give you an answer before sending you to hell. Anyways, I gave all the answers in a quite lenghty post. As a matter of fact, it was a few days before any other non believers figured out what to say in their reply.

[StonerBill]

lol talk about being full of yourself. have you thought maybe people jsut werent sitting at teh forums waiting for your reply? from waht i see, relies have been pretty consistant the whole teim trhough. maybe poeple just couldnt be bothered responding to your arrogance? hell at least when i use arrogance ill accept poeples responses. your jsut dumb who has used an old and outdated boring argument technique most popular by those who want to win quickly to avoid further discussion, which is always inevitable. for teh best argument is one that has not been rushed.

anyway god isnt allowed to send me to hell if i ask for forgiveness.

heres an idea, when you die.. oh guess waht you dont get to ask jack shit, your forgotten, as everyone is eventually, and you cant even experience or percieve your death. oh but that jsut cant be true, because you cant comprehend such nothingness and of course everyhting in your universe can be rationalised and understood by you because it was obviosuly made jsut for you to live in for a few decades jsut for fun before going somewhere else for eternity.

[Brocktoon]

Until now, This discussion was not going in circles.
In fact, we had pretty much agreed that:
yes, the evidence is overwhelming that massive floods have occured in several if not all regions of the Earth.

We have not agreed if this happened during one year (largely) or over milleniums.

This is a tremendous difference from just 30 years ago when it was one side denying any floods happened vs. a worldwide one.

I would not 'rub it in the face' of Genesis Critics [that they have been forced to concede and in some cases admit they were wrong] if it were not for the fact they have tried to 'Plea Bargain' and 'rub that in the face' of us Pro-Genesis people!

Another example would be the Rocky Mountain Seashells.
20 years ago anti-Genesis people taunted Genesis believers to 'Prove it!"

Genesis folks climbed high to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains and found Seashells and fossilised marine life everywhere.
Then.
The Critics had to 'think fast' and proceeded to teach (cover-up better word) that .. oh..."Yes.. Um... these were 'lake beds' and then the Mountains Grew afterwards with the shells still sitting on the face of them.
But...
Somewhere in the last 10 years they had no choice (based on landslides of logic and science) to ADMIT this was false, what they taught as 'Fact' to an entire generation of kids was WRONG.

Without a 'peep' they now teach that the Mountains were virtually underwater up to the peaks.
Giant Lakes ya.

Dont worry, you didnt 'miss anything' because this dramatic and astonishing admission of failure, and admission that Creationist were the ones scientifically advanced was NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT Publicly.

They just sorta 'switched that in the textbooks' while no one was looking and pretended like "Of course we always knew that"

And now they are doing it again.. pretending like 'They are informing Creationists" about the Black Sea Region being deluged.

Even pretending they are the ones 'Explaining it"

Run Evolutionist run.. you intellectual cowards!

LOL.. Too much coffee in Old Brocktoon this morn, folks hehe

[mother_nature's_son]

We have not agreed if this happened during one year (largely) or over milleniums.

This is a tremendous difference from just 30 years ago when it was one side denying any floods happened vs. a worldwide one.Please don't be dishonest Brock. Evolutionary geologists have been associating ice ages with floods as long as ice ages have been known about, since the 1800's.

Another example would be the Rocky Mountain Seashells.

Genesis folks climbed high to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains and found Seashells and fossilised marine life everywhere.
Then.
The Critics had to 'think fast' and proceeded to teach (cover-up better word) that .. oh..."Yes.. Um... these were 'lake beds' and then the Mountains Grew afterwards with the shells still sitting on the face of them.
But...
Somewhere in the last 10 years they had no choice (based on landslides of logic and science) to ADMIT this was false, what they taught as 'Fact' to an entire generation of kids was WRONG.
Brock, sea shells and other marine life have been around for well over 500,000,000 years.
The Rocky Mountains had hundreds of millions of years to form after these sea shells were fossilized.

Remember tectonic plates?
Let's be conservative and say that the plates which created the Rockies were only moving two inches per year (4 inches combined).

500,000,000 years x 4 inches per year = 2 billion inches = over 150,000,000 feet!

Of course the highest point in the Rockies is not even above 15,000 feet.

As numbers show, it would be entirely possible that the Rocky mountains came about after fossilized sea shells.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig21contcont.gif


And now they are doing it again.. pretending like 'They are informing Creationists" about the Black Sea Region being deluged.

Even pretending they are the ones 'Explaining it"
Of course they are informing the creationists of the Black Sea flood,
Evolutionists are the ones leading the most advanced research on it.

[Brocktoon]

We informed you that the basin was under a massive deluge.

Science then informed you this is beyond a doubt.

Now you know.

Period.

Glad to see you admit that Creationists were right about that one.

[StonerBill]

get abck to some of teh issues i raised at some point please brock?

[Brocktoon]

StonerBill,

Sorry but you are not up to the discussion. Good luck next year anyhow.

I just wanted to touch on MNS's explanations for the marine life fossil and shells at the peak of the Rockies.

The Uplift theory is eliminated because erosion (an known observable phenominon) makes it impossible for any peaks to still exist after 500 Million Years.

(in fact, the rocky mountains and everything else on earth would be flat by now)

The same people now concede that the Valleys between the mountains were actually filled with water (SuperLakes)

If you can explain why erosion did not happen for millions of years - then you can go back to holding the Uplift Explanation for the Seashells and Marine Fossil at some of the highest peaks on Earth.

[mother_nature's_son]

I just wanted to touch on MNS's explanations for the marine life fossil and shells at the peak of the Rockies.

The Uplift theory is eliminated because erosion (an known observable phenominon) makes it impossible for any peaks to still exist after 500 Million Years.Well, first off, the Rocky Mountains are not 500 million years old. What I explained in my previous post was that the Rockies had a tremendous window of opportunity to come into existence after fossilized seashells. The Rockies are thought to have done most of their rising up in the period between 70 and 30 million years ago.

The same people now concede that the Valleys between the mountains were actually filled with water (SuperLakes).

If you can explain why erosion did not happen for millions of years - then you can go back to holding the Uplift Explanation for the Seashells and Marine Fossil at some of the highest peaks on Earth.Allow me to explain.

After the Rocky mountains reached a substantial height (higher than they are today), part of western North America started to stretch, and much of the southwestern part of the high mountain plateau started to get broken up into ranges with basins in between them. This area is now called the Basin and Range Province.

Basins not only greatly elude erosion, but they gather material that erodes off of surrounding peaks. We also know that basins are prime locations for lakes, or, as you refered to them in this instance- Superlakes.

[Brocktoon]

I agree that has been the traditional theory.


The seashells and Marine life are found at the peaks.

The latest way to 'plea bargain' has been to suggest the 'Superlakes' Rose so high that at points they flooded over the tops of the Rocky (and Cascadia) Mountains.

So, there is a point of agreement again.
Its agreed that even the highest points of North America have been flooded.

Again.. Some saying this happened 'Locally' at a different time than other massive, yet local floods.

[StonerBill]

you never like to give explinations for your oppinons and palming off do you?

[mother_nature's_son]

The seashells and Marine life are found at the peaks.I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.

Its agreed that even the highest points of North America have been flooded.
No this is not agreed.

[campbell34]

I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.


No this is not agreed.
Im not talking sea shells, but I have learned they have discovered pillar lava on mount Ararat,and it has been found from the top of the mountain down. Pillar lava is formed when a volcanic vent is surmerged below water. Mt. Ararat is about 17,700 feet high.

[StonerBill]

Can we see a picture of these pillars? most lava pillars take longer than 40 days to form i think

[Brocktoon]

I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.

You can google search 'Burgess Shale' as a specific one.
http://www.scienceweb.org/burgess/bintro.html

There are a number of others too but I cant recall the specific names sorry.

That particular site has not been corrected to fit with the new 'SuperLake' means of explaining the marine fossils.
(They are still touting the former seabed theory .. now apparently discarded.
You will have to ask Evolutionists exactly why but i suspect its the highly embarrassing 'Erosion Oversight')

No this is not agreed.
Yes, You and Evolutionists now agree that there were 'SuperLakes' [meaning water right?] and those Superlakes of water which completely submerged the 'Basins' of NorthWest North American had (at some point) risen to the Peaks of the Mountains.

[mother_nature's_son]

Yes, You and Evolutionists now agree that there were 'SuperLakes' [meaning water right?] and those Superlakes of water which completely submerged the 'Basins' of NorthWest North American had (at some point) risen to the Peaks of the Mountains.
The Burgess Shale fossil site occurs at elevation 7,500 feet, within the Stephen Formation in Burgess Pass on the southwest side of the saddle between Mount Wapta and Mount Field.

Mount Wapta stands at 9,115 feet; Mount Field at 8,672 feet.

Burgess Shale is over 1,000 feet below the nearest peaks.

It is entirely possible that plate tectonics lifted these fossils into their present location. You should also know that they were discovered because they were partially eroded and exposed.

I have seen no explanation that includes Superlakes in any of the links I have visited. Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock...

[Brocktoon]

Lets just review your lilting last paragraph. (You would probably add "Shall we?")

You seem to know enough of the SuperLake theory that you had tried to 'Teach' it back to me several posts earlier.

Unfortunately you did not see anything about Superlakes in any of the links you have visited.

[Note: Just a post earlier you did not 'believe me' there were marine fossils at the peaks of the Rocky Mountains]

Even though you never heard of the Burgess Shale fossils and even though Superlake theory is a new 'pet theory' of your evolutionists you once again feel you should pretend the you are the teacher and instructor and advise me:

"Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock..."

MHS - I am the backup.

Btw.. nice big fake attempt to 'Instruct me' on the Burgess Shale you half-wit.
You just hoped know one would notice YOU believed they were fictional just 2 posts earlier, yet expect me to believe you are not intructing me on "What I should know"

(Now watch this next part because its hilarious)

Burgess Shale fossils are no more exposed by erosion than one would expect after a few thousand years.
Unfortunately your tectonic plate theory is really screwed when this erosion is measured.
(although Im sure erosion only began 5,000 years ago according to your Evolutionist buddies)

You have to build a new explanation now - Lakes must have filled the basins to this 7,500 ft level.
(btw.. since water has a tendency to 'stay level' then the implications are far reaching here)

Don't ask me to explain a chicken-out theory evolutionists have anyway.
Scientificaly speaking the only thing we do know is that these areas were once under water.

Only an Evolutionist would rather believe the Mountains were flat instead of admitting water was high.

[mother_nature's_son]

Thank you for your summary, Brock.
Though it's too bad you still havent given any REAL backing for your arguments...

You seem to know enough of the SuperLake theory that you had tried to 'Teach' it back to me several posts earlier.Yes Brock, I tried to clarify our understanding of the theory. And no, I have not heard of this theory anywhere else (and you have still yet to help me out with that).


[Note: Just a post earlier you did not 'believe me' there were marine fossils at the peaks of the Rocky Mountains]Why should I trust your word? You still speak of these fossils being at 'the peaks of the Rockies', when they are actually in Burgess Pass -over 1,000 feet below the peaks.

You have yet to back up any of your information with credible sources.

Even though you never heard of the Burgess Shale fossils...I actually have heard of the Burgess Shale fossils, I once cited them as evidence of pre-athropods.

"Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock..."

MHS - I am the backup.
o....k....

Ill just pretend I didn't read that...

You just hoped know one would notice YOU believed they were fictional just 2 posts earlier, yet expect me to believe you are not intructing me on "What I should know"No, I never thought they were fictional. As I explained, I didn't trust your word on their location -rightfully so-.

Burgess Shale fossils are no more exposed by erosion than one would expect after a few thousand years.
Unfortunately your tectonic plate theory is really screwed when this erosion is measured.
(although Im sure erosion only began 5,000 years ago according to your Evolutionist buddies)
Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time). Why is this so unbelieveable? Tell me. Why?

Only an Evolutionist would rather believe the Mountains were flat instead of admitting water was high.
Please, look at this diagram-


http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig21contcont.gif

[Brocktoon]

Your splitting hairs and playing legalism games MNS.
Marine fossils 85% of the way up the highest mountains in the world and your little trick is to play word games "Over" 1000 feet from the 'Peak'.

Well presumably not much rests on the highest points for long.

I have seen the location and anyone with a pick can break shale and find marine fossils.

Just like your 'Plea Bargaining' over other floods - you have to play word games and 'explain' what 1/20th of the glass is empty (as if you discovered it)

I have looked at your embarrassing diagram.

Yes, its very colourful and has 'Motion Arrows' (therefore it must be real?).

Please back up your theory by explaining away Erosion.

Presumably you believe that Erosion 'Evolved' and did not exist for 30 million years?
You can 'Back up' you disbanded theory to me, thanks.

[mother_nature's_son]

Please back up your theory by explaining away Erosion.


Presumably you believe that Erosion 'Evolved' and did not exist for 30 million years?
The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-.

What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched, thus the surface area of the mountains is expanding, and new -previously concealed- rocks are emerging to fill the new spaces.

Imagine if the mountains kept stretching until they became flat. The entire substance of these gigantic collections of earth would be laid out- able to be seen.

As mountains stretch, more and more of their substance becomes visible.

You can 'Back up' you disbanded theory to me, thanks.
I have no reason to believe this theory has been disbanded.

Also, a mountain peak and a mountain pass are two very different things my friend. Especially in regard to geology.

[bandit28]

MNS, this is what I see from your posts. The earths surface was basicly flat at somepoint in time where no mountains existed. Then, with your plate tectonics mountains were created. Now you are talking about how mountains are slowly reversing in size because slowly but surely they are flatening out again. Yup, go back and read your posts. In your attempts to be a "smart young lad" you goofed up and said to much crap.

One thing you keep forgetting. You can't proove anything did or didn't happen thousands of years ago. Nor can I. I go off of a strong faith in my God and from archeological findings. You go from theories and a science created by my God. Is there any way that you could proove that all of the land mass was not connected at some point in time? No you can't. Also, I find it difficult to understand how you think so many things could happen without a creator(like life begining, land being formed, gras growing from nothing at all) and yet still put limitations on what this earth could or could not handle. You say that the earth did not have enough water to be able to be flooded entirely. I say how can you proove this. It happened some 5,000 years ago. You see where your beliefs are putting restrictions on things? This is what so confuses me about people like you. You think we came from some omeba that formed from nothing. And this omeba split up in so many different ways, multiplied itself millions of times, and bam, life on earth. So what created earth?

How about we just do this. You keep believing that nothing is possible unless you can duplicate it in a lab, I'll keep having faith in God. When we die, we will see who is right.

[Brocktoon]

For the record, the Shale on the side of the mountains is not deep inside the mountains.

It all but on the surface.
If you are up there.. you will be well aware you are on top of a mountain.

Having said all that.
The commonly held theory is that an Ice Age pushed Glaciers over this region.
Eventually the Glaciers melted and naturally left massive Superlakes between the Mountains.

This is now used to explain how marine life is at the highest peaks.

I can't believe a 'Old Age' geology student would not know this is the current excuse for marine fossils at the highest of locations.
Its not my theory anyway so Im not going to try and justify it.

One thing we DO KNOW is that marine life will be washed up on the sides of Mountains by a huge flood.
That is one obvious option.

But .. then again. .probably not for a Genesis denier. They MUST pick any and all other options.

:P

[mother_nature's_son]

MNS, this is what I see from your posts. The earths surface was basicly flat at somepoint in time where no mountains existed. Then, with your plate tectonics mountains were created. Now you are talking about how mountains are slowly reversing in size because slowly but surely they are flatening out again. Yup, go back and read your posts. In your attempts to be a "smart young lad" you goofed up and said to much crap.
Bandit, go back and read my post.

"What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched..."

Each mountain range is affected by unique tectonic conditions. Not all mountians are flattening out.

My mention of a mountian range flattening out completely was an illustrative supposition, a mental image to better understand the concept of what happens when the Rockies stretch.

You say that the earth did not have enough water to be able to be flooded entirely. I say how can you proove this. It happened some 5,000 years ago. You see where your beliefs are putting restrictions on things?
Water recycles itself here on earth. The water that existed 5,000 years ago is still here today, and it can be measured. It is not, and was not, enough to completely flood the continents.

This is what so confuses me about people like you. You think we came from some omeba that formed from nothing. And this omeba split up in so many different ways, multiplied itself millions of times, and bam, life on earth. So what created earth?
Oembas would not come from nothing. They are a chemistry of organic matter.

What created Earth? I guess the simple answer would be accretion: electromagnetic attraction and gravity.

How about we just do this. You keep believing that nothing is possible unless you can duplicate it in a lab, I'll keep having faith in God. When we die, we will see who is right.
Good deal :p

[mother_nature's_son]

For the record, the Shale on the side of the mountains is not deep inside the mountains.

It all but on the surface.
If you are up there.. you will be well aware you are on top of a mountain.
Brock, brother, this really shouldnt be so difficult.

I previously explained-

"Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time)."

"The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-."

I can't believe a 'Old Age' geology student would not know this is the current excuse for marine fossils at the highest of locations.
Its not my theory anyway so Im not going to try and justify it.
I am not a geology student... yet.

All Im asking for is a link. Where did YOU get this information?

One thing we DO KNOW is that marine life will be washed up on the sides of Mountains by a huge flood.
That is one obvious option.
Brock, this doesn't work.
These marine creatures would need to be rapidly buried in sediment to fossilize, because many did not have skeletons (and there were a great number of creatures buried together). Rapid burial does not happen on a slope. Mud flows covered the creatures and deposited them in deep waters where decay is limited and slow. It was after their burial and fossilization that tectonic movement transported these specimens to where they can be seen today.

[Brocktoon]

You often make hypothesis and back it up with conjecture you know?


You just state (out of your own imagination) that marine life would not be in sediment (Im guessing you see the mud sliding down hill in your imagination?)
on the side of the mountain.

Then you seem to 'explain' this theory 'as if' it were proof in inself.

Another example is you believe the fossils were deep inside the mountain and later pushed out and exposed by erosion.
You cite your theory as if it is evidence or demonstration of your theory?

The Shale is on the side of the mountain.
I guaruntee you this.
Ive been there.
I am the link to the information.

You keep pretending your theory the fossils were once deep inside the mountain as an 'explanation'.
No.
You are just imagining that it must have been that way.

The main thing is this - we DO AGREE that the mountains are being uplifted by continental drift.
YOU have the problem trying to reconcile your outrageous old-age times with the evidence.
Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

You better trying and create an explanation for the lack of erosion for 30 million years or those fossils were left there by floods.
Most of your buddies have abandoned the 'once a seabed' theory because scientific facts forced them too.

[mother_nature's_son]

You just state (out of your own imagination) that marine life would not be in sediment (Im guessing you see the mud sliding down hill in your imagination?) on the side of the mountain.

Then you seem to 'explain' this theory 'as if' it were proof in inself.Brock, allow me to do something that you have not done throughout this entire discussion (even though it has been asked of you repeatedly)-
[watch this..lol.]

"Following periodic mud slumps Burgess Shale organisms were transported downslope and deposited into anoxic waters..."
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/burgessshale/pres.html

"The animals were preserved after the sediments where they lived failed and
flowed down the slope; there may have been more than 50 flows."
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1366/burgess.html


"The Burgess Shale was deposited at the base of this cliff..."
http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

My imagination huh?

Another example is you believe the fossils were deep inside the mountain and later pushed out and exposed by erosion.
You cite your theory as if it is evidence or demonstration of your theory?

The Shale is on the side of the mountain.
I guaruntee you this.
Ive been there.
I am the link to the information.Yes Brock, clearly the fossils are now exposed on the side of the mountain, but it hasn't always been this way. And I will explain how this could be so.

The main thing is this - we DO AGREE that the mountains are being uplifted by continental drift.
YOU have the problem trying to reconcile your outrageous old-age times with the evidence.
Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

You better trying and create an explanation for the lack of erosion for 30 million years or those fossils were left there by floods.Ok, lets start with this premise. Burgess Shale is 30 million years old.

Right. As my links show us, these fossils were preserved by mud slides. The mud slides which trapped these creatures were not the last mud slides to occur at the base of this slope. Over time, the Burgess shale fossils were buried deeper and deeper within sediment (perhaps the upper layers also contained fossils, but have since been eroded away). By the time conditions changed and the shale was actually out of water and suseptible to erosion (likely millions of years later), the fossils we see today were protected under many other layers of rock. It would then take a great deal of time for erosion to work through these upper layers. This whole process easily could have taken 30 million years.

Most of your buddies have abandoned the 'once a seabed' theory because scientific facts forced them too.Brock, to be honest with you, it is quite frustrating to me that you make such claims with ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT.

I have searched the internet and found NOTHING about evolutionists abandoning the seabed theory. NOTHING!

I have heard of absolutely no scientific facts that could cause this either.

WHERE ARE THESE 'FACTS' BROCK? WHERE ARE THE LINKS? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?

[Brocktoon]

Do you realise that you keep citing the theory as 'proof' of the theory?

do you?

No, you do not. You continue to suggest the theory of the million year old mudslides by QUOTING THE THEORY ITSELF "AS IF" IT "EXPLAINED" TO US THE THEORY IS VALID!?

Please stop doing that.

Also, YOU can provide me with Proof.
Unfortunately your 'Facts' are nothing more than the theory itself presented in 'Instructional' Formatting.

Not cool MNS. Not cool at all.

[mother_nature's_son]

Ok Brock, you are not contributing any new information to the discussion. You do not directly address or refute any of my well-made points that I back up with multiple sources.

You CANNOT possibly deny that mudslides were what preserved these fossils because that's what every website on the subject agrees with.

-Excellent preservation of soft parts in these marine creatures requires rapid burial.

-Lack of scavenging and decay requires rapid burial.

"Through additional work on the site, it was determined that the Burgess Shale included multiple fossil bearing layers of about 2 meters thick stacked 150 meters high and over 60,000 unique fossils have been found." Perfect model for mud slides!
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

"Fossils are therefore found in random orientation, indicative of a violent mudslide engulfing many of the Cambrian organisms. There is also evidence that these organisms died instantly. First, in the presence of an anaerobic environment, such as mud, marine invertebrates normally curl up upon dying. Fossils of the Burgess Shale locality do not exhibit this coiling. Secondly, there is no evidence of any attempt by these organisms to burrow out of their mud "prison." Killed instantly by the mudslides, preservation began immediately."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

You provide NO information to the contrary.
There is no alternative.

[Brocktoon]

Again, you keep citing some Evolutionist theory as 'A backup' or ' a source'.


The funny part of this.. you are conceding more to Genesis than you know.

Your arguing that marine life was trapped in sediment. Ok. Good. I agree and so do the facts.

As far as contributing to this discussion, your welcome.
You have been educated here.

Just taking information supplied to you and then pretending you are the one 'teaching it back' to me does not 'make it so'.

Thanks for admitting marine life fossils are found at 7,000 ft elevations.
Glad you are willing to concede that fossils are made from lifeforms encased in sediment (mud).
Your also willing to accept that (at some point) most of the Pacific NorthWest has been underwater.
..and you agree that evidence is overwhelming the Black Sea region of Earth has been deluged.

I have no doubt there are thousands of Evolutionists scrambling to 'Explain away' these facts.
They count on gullible students to accept their 'hypothesising' excuses as 'Back Up' or 'Research' but its not.

Citing a theory that the Rockies were a flat seabed IS the debate, not an 'Evidence' just because someone told you it 'was so'.

Just out of curiousity - why do you figure there are now extint lifeforms encased in sediment all over the Earth (incl at high mountainous altitudes like the ones YOU were informed of recently)
?

[mother_nature's_son]

Again, you keep citing some Evolutionist theory as 'A backup' or ' a source'.And you cite a creationist theory without any backup or source!

Your arguing that marine life was trapped in sediment. Ok. Good. I agree and so do the facts.I dont have to argue that marine life was trapped in sediment, this is entirely obvious.
I also don't have to argue that these creatures were trapped in a mudslide; with enough investigation of the fossils, this is entirely obvious as well.

As far as contributing to this discussion, your welcome.
You have been educated here.You have not contributed a single link or bit of cited information. How you can think you are putting up an argument from this position, I truly do not understand.

An yes, I have been educated by information gathered by real geologists.

Glad you are willing to concede that fossils are made from lifeforms encased in sediment (mud).lol. Gee, thats really a tough one to admit there.

I have no doubt there are thousands of Evolutionists scrambling to 'Explain away' these facts.As our discussion here shows, evolutionists have a much easier time explaining these facts than creationists. That's why you can't come up with any links or sources that support your view!

Citing a theory that the Rockies were a flat seabed IS the debate, not an 'Evidence' just because someone told you it 'was so'.[QUOTE=Brocktoon]

Argue, right now, that the Rockies were NOT once a flat seabed.

PLEASE, I beg of you.

[QUOTE=Brocktoon]Just out of curiousity - why do you figure there are now extint lifeforms encased in sediment all over the Earth (incl at high mountainous altitudes like the ones YOU were informed of recently)
?Lifeforms have been living and dying upon this earth for millions upon millions of years and occasionally the requirements for preservation are met upon (or cause- as is the case here) death.

As far as the mountains- plate tectonics.

[Brocktoon]

Let me know what you think of Walt Browns HydroPlate theory?


(btw Walter Brown is a 'real' geologist in case you want to be smart)

http://www.creationscience.com/

Of course its not perfect, but it goes a lot further to explain the Earth than evolutionistscience has imo.

For the record, everyone believes the Rockies are being pushed up.
This is because the Earth is dividing.
Genesis told YOU that btw.

[StonerBill]

I think a point that has been missed is that in order for a worldwide flood to cause the effects brock is claiming, it would have to be around for a lot longer than 40 days or wahtever. it woul dhave to be around for thousands of years. longer even.


Both of you adress this NOW!

[Brocktoon]

Hi StonerBill!


Oh yes.. MNS and Myself were both present at that time but we didnt see you there. Must have just missed ya?

Maybe you should explain further how and why it would take more than 40 days for the flood waters to subside (at least.. as low as the Ararat Mountain Range anyway)?

Thanks

[StonerBill]

No, thats waht you need to explain, its your flood.

[JesusDiedForU]

No, thats waht you need to explain, its your flood.